Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 09 - February 15, 2026

[CITATIONS: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 22 TO 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 29]NOMINAL INDEXSANKULA NAGARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 22SANKULA NAGARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 23GOGULAPALLI KHADAR MOHIDDIN (Died) v. GOGULAPALLI KHADA (Died): 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 24Kanithi Deepak v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 25NALLAMOLU RAJARAJESWARI v. NALLAMOLU MOHANA MURALI: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 26G.Ravi Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 27ANDHRA PRADESH ANIMAL HUSBANDARY GAZETTED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and Ors: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 28Kamireddy Bhavani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 29FINAL ORDERS/JUDGMENTS'Attestation Of Vakalatnama Is Mandatory Safeguard Against Impersonation, Unauthorised Litigation': Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 24152 of 2025Case Title: SANKULA NAGARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 22The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that attestation of vakalatnana is not a mere formality, but a mandatory safeguard to ensure genuineness of authorisation and to prevent impersonation or unauthorised institution of proceedings. For reference, a vakalat is a written authority executed by a litigant authorising an advocate to appear and conduct proceedings before a Court.Justice Subba Reddy Satti lamented the increasing instances of petitioners denying to sign a vakalat, which constitutes “unholy litigation” that not only demoralises the confidence of advocates, but also creates obstacles in the “noble profession”, and embarrasses the legal fraternity.Banks Constitute Integral Part Of Waterbody, Any Encroachment Violates Public Trust Doctrine: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 24152 of 2025Case Title: SANKULA NAGARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 23The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that banks/bunds of tanks constitute an integral part of a water body, which need to be strengthened from time to time, and any encroachment or construction on the same violates the Public Trust Doctrine.The Court was dealing with a writ petition whereby the petitioners challenged the proposed closure of a 30-foot road, which the State asserted was not an existing road but formed part of Zurreru Vagu (the Vagu), reserved for natural water flow and flood protection.Refusal To Condone Delay Can Thwart Meritorious Matters At Threshold: Andhra Pradesh High Court Restores Partition SuitCase Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 2075, 2076 and 2077 of 2022Case Title: GOGULAPALLI KHADAR MOHIDDIN (Died) v. GOGULAPALLI KHADA (Died)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 24The Andhra Pradesh High Court has explained that while the insistence on explaining day-to-day delay is to tackle pendency of cases in Trial Courts and to contain litigants who seek to unnecessarily protract litigation, Trial Courts are nonetheless expected to adopt a pragmatic and practical approach while considering applications seeking condonation of delay.Justice Harinath N referred to Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst.Katiji and others [AIR 1987 SC 1353], where the Supreme Court observed that applications for condonation of delay should have approached liberally as a litigant derives no benefit by lodging an appeal late, and refusal to condone might result in a meritorious matter being thrown at a threshold level.PIL Not Meant For Firms Or Contractors: AP High Court Dismisses PIL On AP TRANSCO Tender ConditionsCase Number: WP(PIL) NO: 239 of 2025Case Title: Kanithi Deepak v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and OthersCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 25The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by an Advocate challenging the tender conditions issued by the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (AP TRANSCO), holding that the petitioner sought to espouse the cause of firms, contractors, and companies, and not of persons who are economically challenged.The petitioner questioned four tender notifications and purchase orders relating to supply, laying and commissioning of 220 kV underground cables relating to transmission infrastructure in Guntur, and alleged that the eligibility and technical criteria were restrictive and tailored to favour select private bidders, and thereby violative of Fundamental Rights of the Company under Article 19(1)(g), and detrimental to Public Exchequer and fair competition.Convenience Of Wife Prevails Over That Of Husband: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates, Transfers Divorce CaseCase Number: TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 36/2025Case Title: NALLAMOLU RAJARAJESWARI v. NALLAMOLU MOHANA MURALICitation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 26The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a wife's plea to transfer the divorce case initiated by her husband, from Repalle, Guntur District to Ongole, Prakasam District, holding that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife must...

Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 09 - February 15, 2026

Saahas Arora

Tags